Try searching for information theory by Gitt, Spetner, and/or Dembski. I haven't read much on it yet.

Every mutation or evidence of evolution in a population that I have personally researched has been a gene that was already there as "junk DNA" that was turned on, or it has been a loss of information similar to what happens when you start with two wolf-like dogs that make a variety of breeds and end up with chihuahuas that can only make more chihuahuas. In these cases it is easy to say that no new information was added.

I assumed that mutations could arise and that natural selection happens; don't think anyone would argue with that.In the Lederberg study to which I was referring the colony was bred from a single, non-resistant individual that therefore did not have the information (for resistance) on its genome as it was non-resitant.

Usual question: Can anyone define 'information', as 'understood' by creationists?

Why does it only have be understood by Creationist? Almost all genes function in groups or a single gene controls many different functions, so it should be simple to show us a gene duplication that controls an entirely new function.

I assumed that mutations could arise and that natural selection happens; don't think anyone would argue with that.

And how would we go from abiogenesis to evolution and natural selection? That is my question to you. Once again you are trying to move the topic from my general explanation of your beliefs to a more specific topic. You can't hide what you believe Mitch.

In the Lederberg study to which I was referring the colony was bred from a single, non-resistant individual that therefore did not have the information (for resistance) on its genome as it was non-resitant.The colony was bred from a single, non-resistant bacterium.Ã‚Â How else could the resistance have emerged except through a mutation?

"The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure."

Conclusion:

"So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic."

The Lederberg experiment wasn't about information either, it was about whether mutations were random or directed based on exposure.

No, I say: "this then is an example of a beneficial trait emerging due to a mutation and then proliferating within the population as a result of natural selection".

And we don't argue about beneficial mutations, why do you insist that we do not believe that mutations can be beneficial? All we are saying is that any observed mutation is the result of information that was already on the genome.

Well, a beneficial trait that must have arisen through a mutation and then proliferates as it is naturally selected is worth pointing out.

There you go again Mitch. We are not arguing that mutations are beneficial, we are arguing that it is not due to an increase of information or novel information on the genome.

We observe gene duplication and we observe mutations.Ã‚Â I ask again: how can a gene that has duplicated into two, one copy of which has mutated, not amount to an increase in information on the genome?Ã‚Â (There is no loss because of the mutation as one non-mutated copy remains.)

Most of the time the information is not used. If it is used, the original gene is done away with, resulting in a loss of information due to the fact that the mutated gene has less information than the original gene.

I will again show you an excerpt of a Scientific Paper from a journal known as complexity. If you ignore this again then it will be obvious that you are just avoiding reality:

"All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natu- ral selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the pro- cess of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." Ãƒâ€œ 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 00: 00Ã¢â‚¬â€œ00, 2011

If there is so much evidence for an increase of information on the genome or novel information arising, show me. All I am asking is that you provide evidence for your conjecture, so far, you have failed to do so.

Mitch,
Like I said I don't get hung up on the information arguement. Technically, is changing from English to French an increase in information. Is I love you to J t'aime an increase? It is a change. I love you and I miss you, and I will see you tonight is an increase of interpretable information. Let's say the two languages are the two different environments. In many cases, there is a breakdown in overall fitness in order to achieve the "beneficial" mutation--or what has also been called an "ecological specialization."

So I love you and miss you, and I will see you tonight (wild type)--becomes Je t'aime et te manque, and will nigh (specialized mutant with plietropic break down--fitness cost). I hope that makes some sense.

I will again show you an excerpt of a Scientific Paper from a journal known as complexity. If you ignore this again then it will be obvious that you are just avoiding reality

This paper you keep posting is published in an obscure online journal and authored by Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr. Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr posts on online forums using the name "Atheistoclast", i.e. opponent of atheists. (See posts 2 and 4 http://www.talkratio...ad.php?t=32168). He is frankly an online antagonist; if he is a biologist I can find no record of his CV or his position. The article has been used in creationist circles since it was circulated by Evolution News and Views, a Creationist newsletter - http://www.evolution...alle042331.html .

Good on him for sneaking his stuff into a journal. I am not spending my time commenting on obvious propaganda.

If there is so much evidence for an increase of information on the genome or novel information arising, show me. All I am asking is that you provide evidence for your conjecture, so far, you have failed to do so.

I can only repeat what has not yet been addressed: we observe gene duplication and we observe mutations (I assume you accept that and don't need evidence). How can a gene that has duplicated into two, one copy of which has mutated, not amount to an increase in information on the genome? Length and variey have been added to the genome and the mutation has not led to a loss of info as one non-mutated copy remains.

This paper you keep posting is published in an obscure online journal and authored by Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr.Ã‚Â Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr posts on online forums using the name "Atheistoclast", i.e. opponent of atheists.Ã‚Â (See posts 2 and 4 http://www.talkratio...ad.php?t=32168).Ã‚Â He is frankly an online antagonist; if he is a biologist I can find no record of his CV or his position.Ã‚Â The article has been used in creationist circles since it was circulated by Evolution News and Views, a Creationist newsletter -Ã‚Â http://www.evolution...alle042331.html Good on him for sneaking his stuff into a journal.Ã‚Â I am not spending my time commenting on obvious propaganda.

This is what the typical evo does. Joseph's paper was peer reviewed as others who write papers are peer reviewed. Do you not trust in the peer review process? The only response you can give is to attempt to damage his credibility. I talk to him on a fairly regular basis through email, he is a pretty level headed guy and is very knowledgeable in Biology.

Why don't you focus on trying to debunk the substance of the paper rather than try to damage his credibility by doing google searches and check out "unbiased" atheist sites to dig dirt on him. I've seen his posts, and his posts in regards to mutations and natural selection are dead on with operational science. What he describes is exactly what we observe. Of course many atheists and other scientists who support darwinism are going to try and jump all over him and discredit him. Just because a lot of people disagree with one person doesn't make the one person wrong. We are the ones who can use operational science to support our conclusions, and darwinism followers use the past that you can not verify. Heck, they have to use a singularity to create any sort of model for The Big Bang. They only use a singularity because we don't understand it yet. And I assure you that once we learn more about singularities there will need to be major revisions to the naturalistic explanation of how the universe came to be.

What's more, I have a book called The Bible that has made numerous accurate predictions and even mentions Darwinism:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Romans 1:22-25

I can only repeat what has not yet been addressed: we observe gene duplication and we observe mutations (I assume you accept that and don't need evidence). How can a gene that has duplicated into two, one copy of which has mutated, not amount to an increase in information on the genome? Length and variey have been added to the genome and the mutation has not led to a loss of info as one non-mutated copy remains.

The genome can either utilize the mutated copy or the original copy. It can not use both. The other gene is preserved on "the back burner" for its phenotypic utility. It then explores other combinations that may prove useful. This never results in an increase of information however. So remember, only one of the copies can be utilized on the genome at a time. This is the part that you are missing. Any mutation through duplication is never a result of increased information. The gene either interchanges or deletes parts and it can sometimes result in a mutation or even a mutation that is actually beneficial to the organism.

In fact, it begs the question. How did the DNA that it is using to try various combinations get there from abiogenesis?

Try searching for information theory by Gitt, Spetner, and/or Dembski. I haven't read much on it yet.

Every mutation or evidence of evolution in a population that I have personally researched has been a gene that was already there as "junk DNA" that was turned on, or it has been a loss of information similar to what happens when you start with two wolf-like dogs that make a variety of breeds and end up with chihuahuas that can only make more chihuahuas. In these cases it is easy to say that no new information was added.

Did you link that study? Oh, yes, found it...

The problem hasn't been defining information. The problem is I've never seen anyone explain how it's quantified.

That said, I wouldn't really call antibiotic resistant bacterial strains new information. The variation was likely already present in bacteria populations that has been selected for by the new environmental pressure i.e. the antibiotics. I don't know enough about microbiology to say where that variation comes from.

I have, however, proposed sickle cell several times as an example of an increase in information.

According to evolutionists, mutations are random. That is why you will see organisms with different traits whether they are in the same country or a different one. The difference between the bacteria is due to interchanging, deleting, or interchanging genes, not an increase of information. This is what this discussion is about. In the end, it is still bacteria and a completely Biblical observation so the fact that bacteria can sometimes have a beneficial mutation doesn't bother me.

The question is, how can you demonstrate that the Bacteria in question's mutation is an increase(or novel) of information?

In some ways evolutionist state mutations are random but they also imply they are not random. For example, convergent evolution, which justifies a very similar outcome despite requiring many (my guess is in the tens of thousands for an eye) identical mutations. Convergent evolution is closer to predestination rather than a random outcome.

To assess whether or not it was a beneficial mutation, you need only ask the question of which is still alive; the mutated strain or the original strain? If the original strain is dead and the mutated strain is alive, then yes it is a beneficial mutation, whether or not that bridge is missing or not.

Hi Adsummum,

Yes the mutated bacteria is more fit against a particular antibiotic, but when the mutated bacteria is introduced back into a wild environment the wild bacteria is more fit. One reason is that a deleterious mutation caused the bacteria to become more fit in a specific environment. So at a general cost to fitness we have a beneficial outcome. For example,

2. Also organisms (like bacteria) can gain resistance to insecticides/antibiotics through a loss in enzyme activity. link 2

In most cases the beneficial mutation destroys something sophisticated that is needed for the antibiotic to work. This is like destroying a bridge to stave off an advancing army from invading your town. You stop the army at the cost of losing the bridge. For evolution to work, you need to show how a bridge could be made in the first place. Or how genetic information is increased not decreased.

These so called beneficial mutations are not building toward something more advanced and sophisticated? The kind of beneficial mutation needed to prove TOE is something that creates something more sophisticated (an increase in genetic information). Antibiotic resistance is like taking a mile step backwards to take one small step forward.

In some ways evolutionist state mutations are random but they also imply they are not random. For example, convergent evolution, which justifies a very similar outcome despite requiring many (my guess is in the tens of thousands for an eye) identical mutations. Convergent evolution is closer to predestination rather than a random outcome.

Yep, Evos will leave Darwnism when supporting it gets them into a corner then they will jump back when it is safe.

. Evolution is not accidental...but nobody planned it. Evolution is not random, they tell us, but there was no intelligent blueprinter.

The source of endogenous variety (mutations) are random so the outcome of evolutionary change cannot have been planned. Natural selection of more adpative phenotypes is not random therefore the process of evolutionary change is not accidental.

convergent evolution, which justifies a very similar outcome despite requiring many (my guess is in the tens of thousands for an eye) identical mutations.

The genotypes do not need to be identical they just need to lead to similar phenotypes.

This is what the typical evo does. Joseph's paper was peer reviewed as others who write papers are peer reviewed. Do you not trust in the peer review process? The only response you can give is to attempt to damage his credibility. I talk to him on a fairly regular basis through email, he is a pretty level headed guy and is very knowledgeable in Biology.

Why don't you focus on trying to debunk the substance of the paper rather than try to damage his credibility by doing google searches and check out "unbiased" atheist sites to dig dirt on him.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know AtheistoclastÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s qualifications, his position or any institution with which he is affiliated so cannot know who his peers would be. Are these people qualified scientists? Online antagonists? People whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve decided a priori that the Genesis account HAS to be literally true if the Resurrection is to have any meaning? Furthermore, I have no idea as to the acceptance criteria that are used by a publication of which I had been unaware. An established scholarly journal (Nature, Science, the BMJ etc.) have a reputation for rigorous peer review; Complexity, no idea.

I would not have been drawn to this aforementioned site had Atheistoclast himself not posted there himself many times. If someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s credibility can be damaged by a Google search then they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have had much credibility to begin with. For these reasons (and because of the bias apparent in his online name) I shall not be reading AtheistoclastÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s article.

We are the ones who can use operational science to support our conclusions, and darwinism followers use the past that you can not verify. Heck, they have to use a singularity to create any sort of model for The Big Bang. They only use a singularity because we don't understand it yet. And I assure you that once we learn more about singularities there will need to be major revisions to the naturalistic explanation of how the universe came to be.

No, creationists start with the premise that an untestable creation account is literally true then try to justify this by searching for problems in anything that contradicts the creation account (geology, orthodox natural history etc.). If that is operational science then Ã¢â‚¬Å“operational scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â no longer has any meaning.

Big Bang cosmology has nothing to do with evolutionary biology (Ã¢â‚¬Å“DarwinismÃ¢â‚¬Å“).

What's more, I have a book called The Bible that has made numerous accurate predictions and even mentions Darwinism:

Is this the same Bible wherein the central figure predicts His return within a generation? Was that an accurate prediction?

The genome can either utilize the mutated copy or the original copy. It can not use both. The other gene is preserved on "the back burner" for its phenotypic utility. It then explores other combinations that may prove useful. This never results in an increase of information however. So remember, only one of the copies can be utilized on the genome at a time. This is the part that you are missing.

This is just wrong. Genes are strips of chromosome and chromosomes are chains of chemical bases. If a gene duplicates due to copying error then its sequence of bases is obviously lengthened (and this may or may not affect a phenotype). There is nothing determining that Ã¢â‚¬Å“only one of the copies can be utilized on the genome at a timeÃ¢â‚¬Â. Genotypes are on the genome or not at all. The genome does not explore useful combinations and does not have any Ã¢â‚¬Å“back burnerÃ¢â‚¬Â for its constituent genes separate from its chromosomes.

"I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know AtheistoclastÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s qualifications, his position or any institution with which he is affiliated so cannot know who his peers would be. Are these people qualified scientists? Online antagonists? People whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve decided a priori that the Genesis account HAS to be literally true if the Resurrection is to have any meaning? Furthermore, I have no idea as to the acceptance criteria that are used by a publication of which I had been unaware. An established scholarly journal (Nature, Science, the BMJ etc.) have a reputation for rigorous peer review; Complexity, no idea"

"I would not have been drawn to this aforementioned site had Atheistoclast himself not posted there himself many times. If someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s credibility can be damaged by a Google search then they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have had much credibility to begin with. For these reasons (and because of the bias apparent in his online name) I shall not be reading AtheistoclastÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s article."

This is an invalid point. I can do a google search on many people who have done something that caught the attention of the public and find negative articles on them. Including Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller, etc. Just because an atheist site has an issue with a certain person such as Joseph does not mean that his papers are not trustworthy. If his understanding of biology is so skewed, then I await your rebuttal.

"No, creationists start with the premise that an untestable creation account is literally true then try to justify this by searching for problems in anything that contradicts the creation account (geology, orthodox natural history etc.). If that is operational science then Ã¢â‚¬Å“operational scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â no longer has any meaning."

So, you are bashing Creationists because a religion is not testable? What a hypocritical statement. Why don't you enlightening me on the conditions of abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is not testable and is far from empirical.

Operational Science is observing that novel information and an increase of information on the genome has not happened in our lifetime. Operational Science is observing the Second Law of Thermodynamics and seeing the problem that it causes for materialistic evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis. Operational Science is looking at the temperatures throughout our universe and realizing that The Big Bang never happened. Operational Science is Science based off of what we observe, now, explain to me how Common descent, abiogenesis, and The Big Bang is operational Science? Jolly Roger said "Dead men tell no tales." Dead animals don't either, neither do rocks.

Big Bang cosmology has nothing to do with evolutionary biology (Ã¢â‚¬Å“DarwinismÃ¢â‚¬Å“). It has everything to do with your world view Mitch. Cosmic and Chemical evolution used to be taught side by side in schools with evolution until scientists separated it. If you are going to accuse us of making assumptions I want you to give me the conditions of both abiogenesis and The Big Bang. At least we can explain our model. You can't scarcely begin to explain your own. I can say that God has nothing to do with my view on evolution, but I don't have to use this tactic because I am perfectly capable of defending God's existence. I expect you to defend your premise of the origin of existence if you are going to come waltzing in here to try and take shots at people's beliefs in this forum.

"Is this the same Bible wherein the central figure predicts His return within a generation?Was that an accurate prediction?"

The ignorance of this statement is staggering, I bet you haven't even read the first 5 Chapters of The Bible yet you claim that you know scripture.

You are obviously referring to this verse:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34.

Jesus uses the Greek word "genea" which is a word for generations. This word has several meanings. The primary meaning is a group of men of common descent. Such as a race.

I happen to have several books on different languages such as Hebrew and Greek. My Lexicon Greek Dictionary provides the following definitions for "genea"

"1) a begetting, birth, nativity

2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy

2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation"

You may want to learn more about The Bible before you choose to argue about it.

"This is just wrong. Genes are strips of chromosome and chromosomes are chains of chemical bases. If a gene duplicates due to copying error then its sequence of bases is obviously lengthened (and this may or may not affect a phenotype). There is nothing determining that Ã¢â‚¬Å“only one of the copies can be utilized on the genome at a timeÃ¢â‚¬Â. Genotypes are on the genome or not at all. The genome does not explore useful combinations and does not have any Ã¢â‚¬Å“back burnerÃ¢â‚¬Â for its constituent genes separate from its chromosomes."

Nope. You are trying to divert the conversation by trying to give a basic definition of the gene. Nice try.

To reiterate my point that you danced around, when a gene is duplicated, one copy of the gene is retained for its phenotypic utility. Two examples are encoding for a protein or functional RNA, the other copy is free from selective constraint, and able to mutate and 'explore' alternative possible combinations via neutral drift. It may or may not produce something useful.

...No, creationists start with the premise that an untestable creation account is literally true then try to justify this by searching for problems in anything that contradicts the creation account (geology, orthodox natural history etc.). If that is operational science then Ã¢â‚¬Å“operational scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â no longer has any meaning. ...

Most claims of natural science including chemistry, biology, physics, geology doesn't contradict a creation account. And perhaps we should also have a look at what,perhaps unadmitted, premises evolutionists do work from.

"No, creationists start with the premise that an untestable creation account is literally true then try to justify this by searching for problems in anything that contradicts the creation account (geology, orthodox natural history etc.). If that is operational science then Ã¢â‚¬Å“operational scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â no longer has any meaning."

"Is this the same Bible wherein the central figure predicts His return within a generation?Was that an accurate prediction?"

The ignorance of this statement is staggering, I bet you haven't even read the first 5 Chapters of The Bible yet you claim that you know scripture.

You are obviously referring to this verse:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34.

But that generation that He spoke of was not the generation of His day in which He was living on earth, but of that of the generation that will experience what He was alluding to in that entire chapter: the last one. Oh, yes, he was quite accurate in His statement as every skeptic who will be alive in that generation will see.

The problem hasn't been defining information. The problem is I've never seen anyone explain how it's quantified.

If information was quantified, then it wouldn't be information. Could the information in the word "Cow" be quantified as "C" "O" "W"? No. because individual letters aren't information; They are units.

That said, I wouldn't really call antibiotic resistant bacterial strains new information. The variation was likely already present in bacteria populations that has been selected for by the new environmental pressure i.e. the antibiotics. I don't know enough about microbiology to say where that variation comes from.

Amino acid substitution.

I have, however, proposed sickle cell several times as an example of an increase in information.

Red blood cells already existed. Bending the bumper on my truck wouldn't count as an increase in information would it? In this case, it isn't even the genetic code that's mutated, but the protein.